Bona fide requirement in eviction can support a fresh petition when earlier proceedings were withdrawn without adjudication.

A subsequent eviction petition based on bona fide requirement is maintainable when the earlier petition on the same ground was withdrawn without adjudication, because the landlord's need is a recurring cause assessed on the date of the later proceeding. Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 does not bar a fresh proceeding unless substantially the same was finally decided earlier, and Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply merely because the premises are the same. The later petition may proceed where a new and genuine need is shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second eviction petition based on bona fide requirement was barred because an earlier petition on the same ground had been withdrawn without permission of the court. (ii) Whether Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 or Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred the subsequent proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether a second eviction petition based on bona fide requirement was barred because an earlier petition on the same ground had been withdrawn without permission of the court.

Analysis: Bona fide requirement in eviction proceedings is a recurring cause and must be examined with reference to the need existing on the date of the later proceeding. Withdrawal or failure of an earlier petition on the same ground does not forever preclude a landlord from bringing a fresh proceeding if a subsequent and genuine need arises and is proved.

Conclusion: The later eviction petition was not barred merely because an earlier petition on bona fide requirement had been withdrawn.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 or Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred the subsequent proceeding.

Analysis: Section 45 incorporates the principle that a matter finally decided earlier cannot be reopened, but it applies only where substantially the same issues were finally decided in the former proceeding. As the earlier proceeding had been withdrawn without any adjudication, Section 45 did not apply. Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) also did not bar the later petition because in eviction matters founded on bona fide requirement the cause of action may differ with time, and the mere identity of the premises does not make the subject-matter identical.

Conclusion: Neither Section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 nor Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred the subsequent petition.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the tenant's objection was restored, and the eviction proceeding was directed to continue on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent eviction proceeding based on bona fide requirement is maintainable where the earlier proceeding was withdrawn without adjudication, because such requirement is a recurring cause and the later cause of action is determined by the need existing on the date of the later suit or petition.

---